A Catholic Blog
A priest writing reflections on theology, philosophy, and Catholicism. I'll occasionaly write movie reviews, rants, and discussion topics. I write from my experiences, personal and intellectual, for my benefit and yours (should you get any from it). None of what I write is official or representative of my diocese or parish, just my semi-public attempt at figuring things out and sharing it with you for the sake of dialogue.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Marriage as Status

When marriage is viewed as a sacrament, the one who affirms gay marriage
is simply wrong. But this is because the sacrament is clearly (or to
some, narrowly) defined. There are those who do not recognize the
sacred, however, and there are those who see no value the vocabulary of
sacrament. That's fair, and it's also the world/culture we happen to
live in. It requires those of us to who see it as both religious and
social to further reflect on what we mean by marriage in the social
sphere.

Marriage as a legal concept is a status, and since
many have condemned and pushed aside any religion—perhaps justly or
unjustly—their main thrust in the arguments surrounding this situation
is equal status among heterosexuals. It's not so much that I feel homo-
and heterosexuals do not have equal status in the United States insofar
as I think good strides have been made to reaffirm that homosexuals (all
persons for that matter) are, in fact, human beings and treating them
with dignity and respect is a right. Those who don't, for “religious
reasons,” do so at the peril of their souls— those who bully,
mistreat, attack others, and marginalize people do violence to their
brothers and sisters. They deface the very image of God. But there is also a
difference, let's be clear, between arguing for marriage and against
gay marriage as opposed to doing violence to someone (spiritual, psychological,
physical, or otherwise).

Marriage as a foundation for a natural,
nuclear family is something based on natural potential. Marriage is a
status only insofar as it affirms this natural union—both social and
sexual. Hence saying “marriage is between a man and a woman” describes a
relationship, but that it is also a relationship for a purpose. The
status that attends this relationship also indicates publicly what the
couple is supposed to be in private.

Marriage, however, is being
redefined as a “relationship between persons.” Is it two? Is it more?
The language is by design ambiguous or, at the very least, one cannot
truly defend any sort of clarity. One may say “a consensual relationship
between persons” implies adults, but does it? Does the moment of
consent imply a lifetime, or is the duration of consent the contract
itself?—once I no longer consent to being in a relationship is the
marriage hereby dissolved? Law is silent on this issue and divorce
solves this dilemma, clearly.

Nevertheless, “a relationship
between persons” is descriptive of an event. The potentiality of
marriage in this instance (i.e., that plateau one could reach) points to
a social status. Legal aspects come into play (e.g., finances, visiting
privileges, etc.) but the prospect of family makes this even more
difficult.

Many homosexuals no doubt desire the stability of
what marriage offers for their lives and for the sake of raising their
own family. A woman or man's desire for progeny likely exists in some
equal fashion for homosexuals as it does heterosexuals despite the
easily recognized fact that a child requires a sperm and ovum. In these
relationships adoption or some form of in vitro fertilization is necessary—already it adds third parties to the process of having
a family in the first place. One can perhaps only guess the difficult
legal battles that might lie ahead. Regardless of this aspect marriage
opens up a whole new set of questions regarding family, custody, and
child-rearing.

People are generally swayed by the very
emotionally-convincing speeches given by children or young-adults who
speak before politicians or debates extolling the good life they have
with two mothers or fathers. This is, for them, some proof that there is
simply no difference between one's situation growing up. In the case of
homosexual families it seems as if lesbians have an easier route—they
can be inseminated and develop the child in their own womb. For men,
however, neither of them can easily be involved in the process.

Yet
it is also odd for me to hear the common reply that whether from gay or
straight households the child can grow up healthy. I certainly suppose
that the child can grow up healthy, but we simultaneously hear
(especially on the radio here in Chicago) of the importance of the
father's positive role in a child's life. The government website on the
well-being of children likewise indicates this fact (Child Welfare). So we hear both that “it doesn't matter” and that “it matters.”

I
suspect that many will begin arguing that these facts are, in the end,
simply an assumption about what perspective we want children to grow up
with (that is, with their natural mother and father).

Those of
us who believe in God often get run out of the argument for allegedly
forcing God into this argument, but I think we have real points in the
argument of gay marriage on legal grounds (what will it look like when
expanded upon?) and family grounds (children growing up with parents).

Objectors
may bring into light the fact that there are deceased parents, deadbeat
fathers, drunk mothers, etc. as an indication that heterosexual
marriage isn't all beautiful and perfect—a valid point. But in this
argument it ceases to be valid when it takes the weak example of
marriage and compares it to a normal or strong example of gay marriage.
It becomes a false comparison and simply refuses to acknowledge that
there is a way marriage and family should be. If there were 20 toys, but
19 were broken, would we reassess how the toy actually functions
because the data tells us that 19 are simply broken after all. Rather,
wouldn't we judge the 19 by the 1 that actually did work as it was
intended? So too with marriage in arguments like this—we cannot judge
what is less than right and proper as normative.

There are many
other situations that I would like to treat but require greater space:
impotent couples, couples that do not want children, couples that do not
value marriage (though they are married), among others. Many advocates
of gay marriage that I've come across are only concerned with the
legitimacy of their own definition and that their views on marriage are
protected and sanctioned by the law. Many others, however, realize that
many different ideas of marriage cannot simply be reduced to every last
person thinking marriage is something different. Everyone would do well
to distinguish particular expressions of marriage (which are as numerous
as people, e.g., Hindi, Muslim, Christian, secular, etc.) and the
purpose of marriage (something that is far more unified among a great
number of peoples).

Is marriage something that demands equal
status? In the case of gay marriage and marriage I answer no. This comes
with the caveat, however, that civil marriage as it stands has no
standard by which it says this or that person should get married. In the
legal world marriage is simply the desire of two individuals and they
are then bound legally to one another. There is very little “quality
control” (so to speak) nor is there counseling that goes into
determining whether or not a couple are prepared emotionally and
relationally for marriage. This is a weakness of our system.

The
benefit of the religious conception of marriage, alongside its
insistence on it being sacred and for the family, is that there is
certain counseling and guidance along the way that helps couples
understand the conflicts that arise from living together and raising a
family. It is a system with weaknesses, to be sure, but one that often
produces more stable marriages. That it urges self-sacrifice that
mirrors Christ on the cross while also emphasizing that their union
mirrors the love of the Trinity is itself something of great importance.

Marriage,
when used as a status, often leads people to say that their love is now
validated, but marriage viewed in this way seems less about the triumph
of love and more about the triumph of how one wants the world to view
them. The desire of many is to be treated equally under the law but this
desire extends beyond equal treatment. The argument is that “My view of
marriage is equally as valid as yours and thus it deserves to be
protected by law” but this argument only has legs when marriage is
reduced to a piece of paper. Marriage reduced to a status produces this
argument. One ought to look, rather, at what he means by marriage and
not what he wants to get out of it. In this manner I feel more fruitful
dialog can begin.

Similarly, I personally would care less about
my view or “opinion” on marriage because I don't raise my opinion to the
level of belief on matters social and sacramental (should you see it
that way). I trust rather in what I've been given by my Tradition on the
one hand while also applying what I've been given with reason and
experience. Does everyone's opinion carry the force of “belief”? I don't
think so—but such is the way many people see it.